X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
	:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=bLIS8UgIkFOdxHm4
	uhNJcdePSZlP6oTjDNpQ05WK9X9W5EYuxxomk0zVROPn3leLYu5Uon0wzlphts6k
	tCccE2+SEQ3DGmjHaR76HhqTo12f5F6OPJftNgs5eOLnfnIYKgvVy/kHsRrocovZ
	eHWH9PlKpVEJqbw15MFpKQU7h+k=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
	:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=sISQeYZ9z9B84LDsiBbWHR
	3DFyU=; b=ooNhmt+S1jdpDCVSnc+O1qx3TicJEO/mpwYCBb92BmEDey8a4/1ezO
	noYW9pzLH3s0iEbLEMUByR4R5DXRUmNVqj8o3Yiwkqqjaz87UeC1UfGko6pfVhUr
	LEz+35blM4QgV7LGbdXGsRZN6xZpVUUvScAFA7UEQ6vw5tbFMV9MA=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe@cygwin.com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help@cygwin.com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=H*Ad:U*mark, doh, zombie, d'oh!
X-HELO: m0.truegem.net
Subject: Re: Problem with zombie processes
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
References: <CAOTD34bHSDJErA0B8Qt8Zqi54ciV5ZpRJdTa_pGs9Mp2PERsuw@mail.gmail.com> <58A3598F.2020405@maxrnd.com> <CAOTD34Z7VM=6=Ss_gCLS97c4sFNpnaT-+RgJq+xme-VyWYbbpw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Geisert <mark@maxrnd.com>
Message-ID: <58A773C9.1080905@maxrnd.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 14:06:01 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:43.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/43.0 SeaMonkey/2.40
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOTD34Z7VM=6=Ss_gCLS97c4sFNpnaT-+RgJq+xme-VyWYbbpw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Erik Bray wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Mark Geisert <XXXX@XXXXXX.XXX> wrote:

Please don't quote raw email addresses.  We try to avoid feeding spammers.

>> Erik Bray wrote:
>>>
>>> The attached Python script
>>
>> ??
>
> D'oh!  Here is the script.  It at least demonstrates the problem.
>
[...]

Thanks!  Running this script repeatedly on my system (Win7, 2 cores / 4 HT 
threads) showed no differences between your Test 1 and Test 2.  Each Test 
concludes in one of three ways, seemingly randomly: (1) read of /proc/<pid>/stat 
succeeds and process status is displayed, (2) read fails with Python IOError, 
(3) read apparently succeeds but there's no process data displayed.

An strace of your script shows Python itself is calling wait4() to reap the 
child process.  So, as Doug suggested on another thread, the script's actions 
are just subject to the whims of process scheduling and vary from run to run.

..mark




--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple